TEACHING AND LEARNING TECHNOLOGY ROUNDTABLE
Unapproved Minutes of May 5 th , 2001
MEMBERS PRESENT: Morris Bibliowicz, Nicholar Chang, Brian Ellison, John Kennedy,
Frances Lee, Lindy McKnight, Francine Podenski, Stefan Ponek, James Rogers, Nadine
Rosenthal, Mike Solow, Barbara Stewart, Fred Teti, Janet Willett, Peter Wood
NON-MEMBERS PRESENT: Jambi Kahahu, Bob Gabriner, Bonnie Gratch Lindauer, Mamie
How
Minutes were generated by Janet Willett.
The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by co-chair Mike Solow.
Minutes from the April 2 nd meeting were approved. (Teti, Wood)
1. Education Technology Plan (Bob Gabriner)
(Bob Gabriner distributed the most recent version of the Education Technology Plan to those in attendance.)
The proposal from Denton Crews is that this Education Technology Plan be a part of the larger
Technology Plan which will include these components: Library, Administrative, Education
Technology, Student Services, and Resource List. Bob Gabriner reported that there is general support for this plan, but there is concern about its integration with other plans (e.g., the Library plan). Lindy McKnight pointed out that technical staff and ergonomic furniture need to be part of the plan and included in the budget. The block grant money can be used for equipment, but we currently are not investing in furniture to support healthy computing. Barbara Stewart noted that the TLC does offer workshops on safe computing.
Bob Gabriner was concerned that pedagogy is not highlighted in the plan. There's no discussion about learning, assessment processes to check if students are learning, or faculty discussions about learning and teaching. When we have an Instructional Designer, that person can play a focal point in the development of discussions on curriculum design and efficacy. Some of this has been taking place in the Curriculum Committee through development of the online course proposals. Brian Ellison has been investigating tech-mediated instruction, specifically ITV, and will send to the members his resources list. We will dedicate a fall session of TLTR to this issue.
Bob Gabriner reported on a report out of Santa Barbara that in their comparison of online, hybrid, and partial (tech-enhanced courses), success rates are good in the online courses, poor in the hybrid form, and in between in the partially online courses. According to a Chronicle of
Higher Education report, the costs for online courses are not dropping; the boundaries between enrollment sessions are blurring; and the trend is toward an emphasis on competency testing rather than a set time in class. Mamie How commented that there is move afoot at some colleges to use online courses as a way to make better use of the facilities. In some cases courses are purposefully designed to have some number of hours face to face and some number of hours online. However, one problem is that not all courses lend themselves to online instruction. Brian
Ellison remarked that the notion is that we are not in the real estate business; we are in the education business. Frances Lee stated that it is important that we be aware of some of the studies being done at various institutions, but that ultimately we will have to base decisions on what works well at City College. Francine Podenski suggested that we put out a call to people within the College who may already be doing things that we don't know about. There are quite a few pioneers out there such as those responsible for the Job Development two-way satellite class.

Barbara Stewart stated that to achieve Frances’s goal we must establish some sort of assessment tool that CCSF faculty can use to learn student responses to innovations so as to determine what works here and what does not.
Mike Solow recently made a report on the Ed Tech Plan to the Academic Policies Committee.
There were questions about assessment of the online courses, why we offer them only in credit and not yet in non-credit. There was an interest in defining early and prominently in the plan what is meant by "technology."
Frances Lee added that on flex day next fall there will be an afternoon devoted to Ed Tech Office matters and that we should incorporate assessment information into this workshop. Janet Willett stated that she will incorporate the current state of assessment into the online learning presentations. Francine Podenski added that there are also the Telecourse survey results we have been doing for years that could be reported on.
2.
Tech II Planning Update (Mamie How)
Mamie How reported on the status of an ongoing inventory of PCs for use by students in the
College. She also reported on the new T1 line that provides internet access for the college. Our third T1, activated May 2nd, is already totally saturated during several afternoon hours of a typical day. By fall it will likely be saturated throughout much of the day, if recent trends continue. To address this issue the State Chancellor's Office is starting to look at funding of fractional T3 lines. Peter Wood suggested that we develop a backup plan for the funding of a fourth T1 line. This would insure that online testing (for example, in Cisco courses) not be canceled due congestion, as was the case this year.
3.
Faculty and Staff Development (Bruce Smith)
(This item was postponed until the next meeting due to Bruce’s illness. There was a brief discussion of this issue, however.)
Frances Lee stated that she has been talking about the need for professional development in general, not just technology. Technology seems much stronger than in any other area. Brian
Ellison pointed out that there is a Faculty and Staff Development Committee. It would be nice if we could develop collaborative efforts between this group and the TLTR.
4.
Janet Willett demonstrated the Coursemetric web-based assessment tool. It is currently free to use through the California Virtual Campus. We will try it out this semester with our online courses. There was a discussion about privacy issues and strategies for obtaining forthright responses from students using this medium.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:48pm.